Dr. Gretchen Tanis presented a paper titled “The History and Influence of the Young Life Organization on Youth Ministry in the United States”. Gretchen, like me, is something of a product of Young Life. In fact she served as a volunteer in the same town as I did in college (at a different time). She actually started her research (for a PhD) not looking to be critical but to answer questions she had about the methodology and theology behind it. She believes that Young Life has had a very significant influence on youth ministry in America.
First, it is helpful to know what her method of research was. She studied the writings of the Young Life Magazine from its inception to modern day. The bulk of her findings came from issues during the 1940’s to 1960’s. She wanted to see how their method was described, explained, and portrayed. She was also looking at the pictures they used to represent themselves, which can communicate much about the organization. What she found was fascinating. That led her to dig into their archives even more and look at training manuals from long ago and even letters written by the presidents and key leaders of the organization. She made some interesting observations from the material but did not offer any particularly strong criticisms.
Gretchen argues that “the methodology of Young Life was formulated long before a biblical or theological foundation for it. The lasting impact on youth ministry today leaves us with an entertaining, attractive ministry that communicates a shallow message of the person of Christ.” In the first two decades of the magazine, she could not find a theological or biblical basis for their method articulated. Plenty was written on how Young Life does ministry and why it pursued that method. A rationale was provided later on when biblical texts were inserted into the training manual to support the method.
She noticed a massive emphasis on being attractive. There were lots of references, particularly in the early days to making Christ attractive to teens. The conviction being that Jesus is the most attractive and those who follow him are made attractive and therefore teens would want to follow Jesus. They just need to hear about him. It is amazing actually to read all the quotes from founder Jim Rayburn on this. The magazine also featured on it’s covers and throughout, pictures of very attractive young people. Some in bathing suits on the beach looking a bit like what an Abercrombie & Fitch ad might look like had it existed back in the 40’s and 50’s. Tanis points out that, based on the writings within, YL seeks to present an attractive Christianity that is humorous, adventurous, strong, and patriotic. It seems to me that the latter two are not seen as an emphasis in the present day.
Another emphasis found was on keeping the message as simple as possible. From the early days the goal has been to speak to teens in a manner that is casual and natural to them. The message in YL clubs has been and continues to focus exclusively on the person of Christ. Jesus is cool. Jesus loves you. Jesus offers forgiveness of your sins. Jesus changes our lives (for the better). Jesus died on the cross for you. Etc. Young Life in its literature suggests that the message must be not only “winsome” but very simple.
Eventually a theological framework was expressed. Tanis found it in a letter written in 1968. Bart Starr the president of YL writing to his board offered a definition of Young Life as “incarnational (non-verbal) and Christology (verbal) with the authority of Scripture underneath it all. The non-verbal takes place through contact and the content through Christology. Contact leads to content through methodology”.
I have three questions brewing in my mind.
First, where should our method come from? If scripture is the ultimate authority in our lives, is that our starting point for methodology?
Second, is it possible that the simple message of YL for so many decades has led to a simple faith that is not very robust or complete? Has it caused us to oversimplify the gospel in youth ministry in general?
Third, is the emphasis on attractiveness a helpful thing or a distortion of reality?
Discuss…
Posted with Blogsy
Leave a Reply